Strong Stomach req'd:Against the war of iraq - arthurschmisserAdded: October 31, 2006, Views: 7,886Bush's America - Saddam's Iraq - aajizanaAdded: March 30, 2007, Views: 6322 dead American soldiers in Iraq - roach2001Added: November 02, 2006, Views: 6,565irak Ska-p "Tio Sam" - alejandrorusso4Added: January 05, 2007, Views: 20,97Result Of War - relishandbeansAdded: August 21, 2006, Views: 35,894Armed Assault Jihad - SimioHornerFilmsAdded: February 16, 2007, Views: 15,365{Yes, I know, this last one is from a computer game, but it's hateful, glorifies killing our soldiers, and is as graphic as the author of the video can make it. I'm just curious to see what YouTube will do. For the record, I flagged it as hate speech. Look forward to an editorial comparing virtual porn with virtual jihad.}

July 30, 2007

The harshest language I’m going to use in this article is to mention Harry Frankfurt’s On Bullshit. There may be different times and places where, creatively used, harsh language is more or less appropriate. It’s one thing to be respectful of the sensitivities of others. Watching one's language in some circumstances and being free with it in others is an example of a single principle that can lead to different behaviors according to those circumstances. But today I want to talk about the use of different principles that are used selectively, according to circumstances. Which principle being advanced depends on whether some advantage is to be had, or because it’s easier to mask one’s true motives behind some more defensible principle.

To summarize Frankfurt’s excellent article, most folks believe they can spot bullshit when they see it, but what exactly is the difference between a liar and a bullshit artist? For one, a liar at least believes the truth matters. There’s no point in trying to deceive others so you can benefit from having them operate under false assumptions unless you think there’s a meaningful difference between the truth and the lie. If it’s all opinion, there’s no need to lie. A bullshit artist, on the other hand, need not tell any lies at all. I don’t remember who said it, and have not easily found the source, but I read somewhere that honesty isn’t simply a matter of telling the truth but a willingness to let people know where you stand. That’s what the bullshit artist is dishonest about. He doesn’t care whether what he says is true or not, he’s more interested in getting away with something.

In short, he has less respect for the truth than a liar does. The bullshit artist is willing to argue principle, however, if it suits his purpose at the moment. He operates under the principle from the Jean Giraudoux quote, “The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made.” I’ve been reading thru the YouTube editors’ blog recently, to get a better idea of how they operate. And I feel comfortable saying that the staff at YouTube is nothing if not sincere. They started out with a kind of ‘hey kids, let’s put on a show in Farmer Brown’s barn!’ vibe going on, and they’ve been trying to keep up with the phenomenal growth of YouTube ever since.

But if we at Operation YouTube Smackdown try and deduce the operating principles for how they handle flagged videos, it’s hard to escape the feeling that they are not above arguing certain principles out of convenience more than conviction. Now, there’s a whole article to be written on YouTube’s history of deleting (and in some cases where they got bad publicity restoring) videos that were more ‘politically incorrect’ than they were violations of stated policy. And at least once, they even deleted a video of a squirrel dodging a tossed rock on grounds of cruelty to animals. I kid you not. Now, it’s probably a good idea to mention another famous quote here. I quote the version I learned, “Never attribute to malice that which is more reasonably explained by incompetence.”

I’m prepared to accept evidence for either conclusion, but if you want to argue neither applies to how YouTube operates, you’ll need to offer me a third option at this point. People are inclined to judge the statements of those they disagree with more harshly than those of folks they like, whom they will often grant far more leeway, or benefit of doubt. Maybe YouTube is just left leaning as their reputation has it, but they still mean well. Well, let me offer a corollary to the quote above: Never attribute to a failing in another person’s ideology that which is better explained by a failing of the human nature we all share. Up to a point, it’s understandable that some videos would slip through the cracks, and it’s not going to be incontrovertible evidence of ill intent or gross negligence in YouTube’s flag review process. But we need some explanation for what we’ve learned so far at the Smackdown.

As of this writing our Operation YouTube Smackdown efforts are yielding about a 15% successful takedown rate. That averages out at just over 2 removals from the average Daily Dozen we put up for people to flag. Initially, the ‘Strong Stomach’ videos seemed to come down more easily, but recently it seems to be evening out a bit with the ‘IED/Hate Speech’ types catching up. If you find yourself wondering maybe the ones that got removed were worse than the others, remember the squirrel. And then go watch some of the videos still on YouTube, which we keep links to in our Archives. You don’t need to watch many to see my point, or notice that a great many of these videos are just recycling footage from other videos or identical sources from elsewhere. They are, in short, no different in any appreciable way than the few that do get removed. Maybe the different staffers apply their own standards, and operate with little oversight or regard for official policy. The only clearly (and repeatedly) stated operating standard YouTube gives out is that they don’t delete flagged videos unless a YouTube staffer has reviewed them, and that they have folks on staff 24/7 doing just that. They don’t say how many people are there at one time, and most YouTube users go to the site to watch what they want to see, and aren’t likely to flag anything they don’t like, even if they stumble across it by accident. Millions of videos get viewed every day, and the number of flagged videos may be small or large, we just don’t know.

We have tried to come up with possible reasons some videos are taken down while others just as bad and often worse remain up. The whole premise behind YouTube is that computers can take care of the details and let humans have all the fun. It’s reasonable to assume there’s some automated procedures to help YouTube staff handle complaints. Maybe it takes a certain number of viewings or a ratio of flags to viewings that get a human’s attention. The squirrel story linked above argues against even that, however. And we’ve seen videos up for less than 2 days and 125-150 viewings get taken down.

So, what explains the jihadi death cult style videos that have been up for a year or longer and have been viewed thousands of times or more? Now, if you read the various policy statements over at YouTube’s Help Center (see our How YouTube Operates) you’ll see lots of high-minded statements about making YouTube not only a user-friendly place, but also a Friendly Place for its users. Read the blog by their editors and you’ll see almost nothing but ‘niceness.’ In fact, it’s as if they aren’t aware the world is filled with anything but nice people, and the occasional troll posting unflattering comments about the videos other people upload.

I have found no mention of controversies about videos being taken down for less than even-handed and principled reasons. They were proud to announce the day they add ‘hate speech’ to the list of reasons to ‘flag as inappropriate’ any video people find objectionable. No mention of jihad videos being posted in large numbers preaching jihad and death to infidels, taking advantage of our culture’s free speech traditions to advance a cause that would deny the same considerations to others if they only could. It’s as if the nice folks at YouTube can’t imagine such things. Well, let’s help them get a clearer picture of the kinds of videos they’re hosting. Let’s make them choose every day between squirrel’s dodging rocks, white guys using ‘the n-word’, and jihadis blowing up Humvees with IED’s. If they want to delete all of them, so be it. Pick a principle and stick with it.

But I will not accept them protecting the tender sensibilities of animal lovers, or the rest of us from harsh language aimed at hurting the feelings of different races, sexes, ages, weights or whatever, and then turning right around and leaving up the vast majority of jihadi hate speech and anti-war death-and-gore fests in the name of free speech. I can see principled arguments for each of those standards (not to mention the public relations reasons YouTube might adopt some of them, as any ‘broadcaster’ would). But playing different Principle Cards every 2 minutes like it’s a game of Magic: The Gathering? That’s just a little too convenient. And arguing principle from convenience is no principle at all.

July 28, 2007

This post is for general Operation YouTube Smackdown comments, questions, or suggestions. Please be civil, and try to make any criticisms the constructive kind. Spam, abuse, and other pointless posts will be deleted at our discretion. See, also.

July 26, 2007

July 23, 2007

Blogger.com uses a rather quirky Comments System, and can take some getting used to.

1. To leave a comment on our Weekly Comments thread, go there and scroll to the bottom of the comments and click the "Post a Comment" button.

2. That will take you to a blogger.com page where you edit & post the actual comment. We have very little control over how that page operates.

3. Initially, you can use the Back/Forward buttons on your browswer to navigate back and forth between our blog and the blogger.com comments page. However, once you post a comment, the previous page seems to 'expire' and Back/Forward may not work to get you back here.

4. Once you've left your comment, you can click on our link at the top of the comment page where it says, "Post a Comment On: Quoth the Raven".

I told you it was quirky, but that's Blogger for ya.Oh ya, and here's: Back to Main Page.

How to Flag (tag) a Video and Shut it DOWN!Just follow these easy steps!

#1) If you don’t have a YouTube account, go sign up for one. You don’t have to use it for anything but this.#2) Click one of the videos in the playlist, let it start and then click the pause button on the player so you don’t have to actually watch the propaganda if you choose not to..#3) Below the video, click “Flag"#4) Choose "Select a Reason"#5) "Violent or Repulsive Content" works for most.#6) If not violent, choose "Hateful or Abusive Content"#7) Next, "promotes hatred or violence"#8) Where it says “please indicate the group attacked” choose National Origin.#9) Where it says “provide additional information” type or copy/paste in the below statement and then at the very bottom click "Flag This Video"Providing services to terrorists violates executive orders 12947 and 13224.

Congratulations! You have just flagged your first Internet Terrorist Video!

We thank you! America thanks you! Our military thanks you!

Note - If you have not registered with YouTube they will require you to do so in order to voice your opinion (flag the videos). It's simple enough - go to YouTube and just do it! They won't give out your email address, but it's probably best not to have any personal information on any account/email you use for this. A lot of us just put in a first name, last name initial, a user or "handle" of our liking. Oh yes, and they want your birth date to be assured you are old enough to be viewing the films. Some of us kinda fib about our birthdates. Who cares! So long as it reflects you being 18 or over.

The First Amendment prevents the government from curtailing our free speech rights. But YouTube isn't the government; it has wider discretion to prohibit or allow the flow of information that flows thru it's servers. Different broadcasters and distributors of information set different standards, according to their target market's expectations. CNN and Fox generally don't show scenes of explicit violence and shattered corpses. Al-Jazeera isn't alone among satellite stations that don't feel the need to respect delicate sensibilities. The Internet is a big place, and there is no shortage of places that will host whatever the customer pays for.

But YouTube presents itself as as a certain kind of company, one that let's viewers 'flag as inappropriate' videos that contain 'hate speech.' This sounds more like the work of a politically correct University administrator than a company that's going to go to the mat for every last internet user's free speech rights. And, YouTube uses new technology; it's at least possible to allow a broader range of views and images on YouTube than are allowed on broadcast or even cable television, in the name of free speech, without exposing 9 year olds to it. The Internet isn't a broadcast medium in the same sense radio is.

But YouTube can't seem to make up it's mind whether they're all about the free speech, or all about protecting people from hate speech. If there's a way to reconcile high-minded policies against hate speech in an effort to create 'non-threatening' environments, protecting everyone's feelings along the way, while offering free webspace for the spread of ideas that pursue little else but creating threatening environments, and are bent on hurting people feelings, faith, and body parts, I'm not aware of it.

By comparison, it's almost easy to understand why YouTube might have a history of deleting videos of citizens whose politics they appear to disagree with. At least in those cases we can assume it all comes down to the question of whose speech is being subjected to the narrowest, strictest, letter-of-the-law reading of YouTube content policies. Not that it's fair, but it's at least understandable, if we assume YouTube operates in a politically partisan fashion. But it becomes unfathomable that YouTube would cater so much to the politically correct at the same time it's protecting the right of people to expound a muderous ideology that would like to take away everyone's right to free speech (and that whole life, liberty, pursuit of happiness would come in for some serious revision, too).

And I'm not talking about Islam here, or targeting Muslims just for being Muslims. I'm perfectly willing to concede that Islam is a Religion of Peace. Just as long as we all agree the death-cult, snuff-flick, hate-drenched videos YouTube hosts in such abundance aren't considered a part of True Islam, and deserve no protection on the grounds of religious freedom, any more than we'd accept a murderer's excuse that the devil made him do it on religious freedom grounds. I've seen many videos posted by Muslims pursuing religious practices no more disturbing than any other religious tradition I've known. I'm not talking about those videos.

Allahu Akbar simply means God is Greatest. I'm fine with that. But when you post a video with traditional religous background music, and repeat that phrase as you loop of the precise moment an IED goes off under a Humvee or other vehicle, a leading cause of death for Coalition soldiers, that's celebrating it. That is not simply committing an act of journalism. That, in my book, is hate speech. Odd thing, YouTube once at least pretended to agree.

The week Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion dollars, "In an e-mail message, Ms. Supan [senior director of marketing for YouTube] said that among the videos removed were those that 'display graphic depictions of violence in addition to any war footage (U.S. or other) displayed with intent to shock or disgust, or graphic war footage with implied death (of U.S. troops or otherwise).'" - NY Times, Oct. 6, 2006

Try telling that to them now. Oh wait, that's just what we're doing here.

And if you want to learn more about YouTube online, there are many many helpful articles. If you're taking the tour of our site, you may have just seen a quote from one of them, demonstrating how concerned YouTube was (when it was being bought by Google for 1.65 billion-with-a-B dollars and getting it's name in all the papers). Something like:

Julie Supan, senior director of marketing for YouTube, said the company removed videos after they were flagged by users as having inappropriate content and were reviewed by the video service.

In an e-mail message, Ms. Supan said that among the videos removed were those that “display graphic depictions of violence in addition to any war footage (U.S. or other) displayed with intent to shock or disgust, or graphic war footage with implied death (of U.S. troops or otherwise).” - NY Times, Oct. 6, 2006

Sounds good to us. Of course, if you try and get YouTube to act on those quotes, well, good luck. No really, good luck; we wish you all the success in the world. That's what we're about here at Operation YouTube Smackdown, ourselves; trying to smack down those videos YouTube says have no place on their service. Let's take a look at some of those Community Guidelines, looking at those that seem most likely to apply to the kinds of Jihadi videos we're talking about. Emphasis in the selected quotes below is mine:

- Don't post videos showing dangerous or illegal acts, like animal abuse, drug abuse, or bomb making.- Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don't post it.- YouTube is not a shock site. Don't post gross-out videos of accidents, dead bodies and stuff like that. This includes war footage if it's intended to shock or disgust.- We encourage free speech and defend everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But we don't permit hate speech which contains slurs or the malicious use of stereotypes intended to attack or demean a particular gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or nationality.

While people are free to flag videos for any reason YouTube offers, the ones we're focusing most on here are the ones that are part of the Internet Jihad that is, in part, hosted by YouTube. If you're interested and what to see how we're going about it, head over to our How To Guide, see what comes next. And thanks.

This post is about things more important than me, so I’ll hope you’ll forgive me if I start out talking about myself. I set aside a little money each month to send to some deserving cause. I’m not wealthy, and it’s not much. I don’t have a family to support, so it isn’t really missed. I do it because a lot of small things add up to something large, and there are a lot of people in the world who can spare a little cash now and again. And I do it because it makes me feel a little less useless. Because when I read stories like Michael Yon’s Superman I feel useless.

It’s not that I am completely useless. But to be honest, I don’t get the feeling that I’m really useful all that often. Maybe it’s not having children. Maybe a human being needs to spend a few years being responsible for other human beings to banish such thoughts. Sure, I’m comfortable that the ordinary choices I make in daily life have made me a nice guy, a decent person. I’m a reasonably bright guy, enough to avoid many stupid mistakes, even if not enough to avoid all foolishness. But I’m nobody to look up to. I’m no Michael Yon. And I’m sure as hell not one of the people whose stories he tells.

Useful people. Responsible for other human beings. How does it feel to be a Lieutenant responsible for the lives of a Stryker full of young men, not much younger than he is? How does it feel to be the young men who learn to trust each other with their lives riding hot, dusty patrols where too many people want to see them get blown up? How does it feel to be the company clerk whose job is to stay by the radio and wait for the call to come in, asking for a medevac ASAP? How does it feel to fly a helicopter through airspace that may be filled with AK-47 fire, RPGs and maybe, just maybe, a SAM? How does it feel to be a cute woman doctor, working every day with young and wounded soldiers who want nothing so much at that moment but to have a picture taken with her? So some day back home they can pull out a wallet photo, roll up a sleeve or pant leg and say, “This gal sewed me up.” And you know they will. It means the guy can take it. He’s come through it. He’s been useful. And besides, chicks dig scars.

How does it feel to leave your home, at your own risk and expense, to spend your time embedded with a Stryker Brigade in Iraq, so people like us will hear their stories? I don’t know. Ask Michael Yon. And while we’re at it, how does it feel to be an engineer sitting up at night, I like to think in an old bathrobe with it’s own pen-stuffed pocket protector, in front of a monitor and keyboard trying to build a better mousetrap? One that can deflect shaped charges. How does it feel to write the software that lets all of the people in the last paragraph talk to each other, pushing it through satellites, if necessary? How does it feel to sit at a terminal in the middle of the night making sure satellites on the other side of the planet keep working? How does it feel to be a family member of our Armed Forces, gathering with dozens of others at the local church or community center on weekends to assemble Care Packages to send to their loved ones? And then putting together hundreds or even thousands more for other soldiers, most of whom they will never meet.

It’s got to feel Useful.

How does it feel to sit at computer splicing together bad music and pictures of shattered and shredded corpses so you can post it on YouTube and prove there’s really no difference between terrorists and all those Useful People? How does it feel to be a politician, worried more about his re-election campaign than whether his next speech or floor vote will make it harder for all those Useful People to do the jobs we ask them to do? How does it feel to clamor for the spotlight because your son died in Iraq and the media decided you had absolute moral authority to say your child and every other Useful Person serving in Iraq is not only there for nothing, but they are the ones causing all the problems? How does it feel to be the reporter or editor who believes it’s more important to pay attention to that kind of thing than what more Useful People are risking, and spending, their lives to accomplish?

Ok, so I could do worse.

I joined Operation YouTubeSmackdown for the same reason I send a little money each month to some website I’ve come across where people are doing Useful Things. I know I’m not sending enough money to make much of a difference. I know getting YouTube to remove even a few of the innumerable hate-filled, snuff-flick, America-hating, death-cult videos that they host won’t save a single life. It won’t shorten by a single minute the time U.S. soldier have to patrol hot, dusty roads half a world away. I know that YouTube is more likely to view every video of an IED that goes off under a Humvee or Stryker as free speech instead of hate speech. No matter how much the producer of the video glorifies the explosion, how many shouts of Allahu Akbar! accompany it, or how many soldiers it joyously claims were killed.

I do it because I want to feel useful. Not Useful, just useful. I do it because, with respects to Michael Yon, our Soldiers, and John Milton, I like to think they also serve who only sit and click.

"YouTube is not a shock site. Don't post gross-out videos of accidents, dead bodies and stuff like that." - from YouTube Community Guidelines

"In an e-mail message, Ms. Supan [senior director of marketing for YouTube] said that among the videos removed were those that 'display graphic depictions of violence in addition to any war footage (U.S. or other) displayed with intent to shock or disgust, or graphic war footage with implied death (of U.S. troops or otherwise).'" - NY Times, Oct. 6, 2006

When I was a teenage bookworm I once came across a library book on the Holocaust. It had pictures. Lots of them, and they didn’t pull any punches. I literally became light-headed and sick to my stomach. I can still picture some of them in my mind, now over 25 years later. I still haven’t found words suitable to convey how much changed for me That Day. It wasn’t that I’d pretended evil wasn’t real, or that humanity had put all that behind itself, or that proper education would be enough to solve all our problems. I didn’t really believe any of that before the book. But how I thought about those notions still changed. I was much less willing to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who argued that way. Make that argument while thumbing thru those pictures, and if you can do it with a straight face and without turning your eyes away, maybe then I’ll listen.

YouTube wants to get good PR by posting nice words in their community guidelines, or in interviews with the NY Times. They want to convey the image their website is a place where you, the people, can put up videos just like you see on TV. Your garage band can make it’s own demo and give Motown, Nashville, Austin, Seattle, and all of California a run for it’s money. You can be the next Steven Spielberg. Bob Saget’s funniest home videos have got nothing compared to the stuff you have on your hard drive from last year’s family reunion. You’re a citizen in a democracy; you can editorialize about the latest political scandal as well as any talking head on CNN or Fox. You can call for the death of all infidels and glory in disembowelments and decapitations just as well as any Imam preaching a Friday Sermon.

Oh, wait. Maybe YouTube hasn’t thought this through. I’ll say it again, I tend to lean on the side of free speech, trusting to the free marketplace of ideas more than any authoritative source telling us what we can and cannot be trusted to see, hear, or read. But YouTube isn’t setting itself up as the wild, wild west that is so much of the Internet. It’s setting itself up as a grassroots broadcasting network. And it wants to get credit for all the good, funny, insightful, talented things people put up there. It wants to be politically correct. And it wants to make money doing so. But it doesn’t want to be responsible for how people actually use the service. Well YouTube, make up your mind.

Nobody is paying me to help you enforce your own policies, and it seems certain that if ‘we the people’ won’t help you, you’re not going to do it yourself. Several countries around the world have blocked access to YouTube because dissident and separationist factions have used it to incite unrest in those countries. But apparently, YouTube doesn’t care to make a distinction. They might be dissidents crying out for free elections denied them by their government. You know, like Muslim women. They might be separatists crying out for the blood of heretics and infidels. You know, like the heretic, infidel Muslim women who want the right to vote.

Why has it become such a cliché already to ask why Google’s ‘Don’t be Evil’ motto doesn’t apply to YouTube videos? Another cliché is the term ‘viral video.’ Well, videos are only viral if the ideas and images they contain are, and YouTube’s policies like to make a distinction between good, catchy and bad, catching viral videos. But I’m starting to get the impression that YouTube’s ‘medicinal’ approach to content is the moral equivalent of claiming you have the cleanest operating rooms around while all your patients are out dying in the waiting room.

Maybe YouTube would really like to declare itself free and open for anyone to post anything for any reason. And maybe YouTube would like to declare itself the online video equivalent of radio’s Air America and only give voice to people they agree with. And maybe their lawyers and marketing guys have told them that’s a recipe for economic disaster. And maybe YouTube thinks it can have the best of both worlds. Claim to have high, and fairly enforced standards. Make sure all the fine print absolves you from any responsibility for the content you’re trying to make money off of. Then do whatever you feel like, or think you can get away with.

Ya, there’s no possible way that could lead to Unintended Consequences. Unless you stop and, I don’t know, think about it for a minute.

I remember my Econ 101 class where I read about externalities. An externality happens when the cost of economic activity is shifted to parties ‘external’ to the circle of those deriving economic benefit from the activity. A factory dumping toxic waste into a nearby river is a classic example. The factory doesn’t pay the costs of cleaning it up. Nor do they face the health risks the people living downstream do. Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion dollars last year. They subsidize the spread of propaganda by individuals and groups whose ultimate aim is to deny those same free speech rights to others, if not kill them outright. Someone watches the video and gets inspired to kill, or just send money to killers, and YouTube’s hands are clean? They only delete videos once enough people complain. Why should we bear the costs of slogging through YouTube’s sewers, trying to clean out the muck? Externality.

It’s been said that in the modern politically correct climate, hypocrisy is the only remaining public sin. Attempting to hold people to a common set of standards has been ‘de-legitimized’ as nothing but the power plays of Insert-Your-Favorite-Oppressors-Here, masking their intentions in lofty but meaningless rhetoric (like, say, this very argument?). But if you can point out someone failing to live up to their own standards, then you can get your self-righteousness on, and go to town. Ok, so YouTube has a history of removing conservative bloggers’ videos and leaving jihadi videos online. I guess I missed that paragraph in their Terms of Use and Community guidelines.

Now, I’d be content arguing that YouTube shouldn’t post videos of terrorists glorying in the death of civilians or Coalition soldiers in Iraq because their entire worldview is evil, and, well, Don’t Be Evil. You know, because the left only deals in high ideals, and reasoned argument, never stooping to blatant emotional manipulation. Like, say, uploading to YouTube a snuff film full of dead Iraqi children set to the tune of John Lennon’s “Imagine”. Of course, if it comes down to it, I guess I’ll settle for asking YouTube to stop being a hypocrite.

July 22, 2007

Once Upon a Time, some folks were sitting around waiting for Ejectia.com to go live. And then it just sort of happened (what follows is slightly edited from the comments thread):

I read at PJM that a lone blogger by the name of Rusty Shakleford has made it his personal business to shut down Taliban websites. This is a real fight, a people's war, a private citizen waging combat on his own! The Jawa Report vs. the Taliban, and guess who's winning? Now what does that tell you about our culture and technology vs. the enemy? A lone hacker is knocking out enemy communications from the privacy of his study. Twenty years ago this would have been science fiction. Check it out a PJM. - Basil...

It just occured to me that Ejectia has an opportunity here to take an active role in the fight against terrorism. I've noticed while perusing combat video on U-Tube that I occaionally land on footage obviously shot by Jihadists. They are using U-Tube as a recruitment tool. Now, U-Tube does have a means by which users can complain to management about anything they find objectionable. U-Tube will then delete it. I'll need some volunteers. Here's the plan: We need to comb through the available footage using search words like Iraq, Afghanistan, Jihad, IED, etc. When we find something produced by the enemy, we click on the approriate link to advise management at U-tube that such video can be construed as aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war. Which it is, and against the law, too. Anybody game? This is a real chance to play an active part in this war, from the privacy of home no less! Post with a positive response, if you're up for it. Tally-ho! - Basil

...

Okay, I just gave my idea a test run. U-Tube is rife with Jihadist propaganda. I filed my complaint under "hate speech." We'll see if I can generate some action. - Basil

...

Basil, sounds like a good idea to me. Can you list any video you find so we can also go there and make our opinions known to management? Lets grow this thing! - Muninn

...

Muninn,Jihadist video is rampant on this site. Just type in key words "IED" and "Jihad". It's all in Arabic and easy to spot. If U-Tube won't yield to citizen pressure, I'll call the FBI. Aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war is not protected speech under the 1st Amendment. Let's have at it. - Basil

This post is for general Operation YouTube Smackdown comments, questions, or suggestions. Please be civil, and try to make any criticisms the constructive kind. Spam, abuse, and other pointless posts will be deleted at our discretion. See, also.

July 07, 2007

Jihad has come to the Internet. Dark Age savages are using the power of the Internet to spread their message of hatred and destruction. You might think that our intelligence community would do something about it. Oddly, where our government has failed, an enterprising American blogger has succeeded in hacking a Taliban website. What's more, the Taliban are aware of his activities and there's an ongoing fight in cyberspace between a private U.S. citizen and a terrorist organization. See this report at Pajamas Media : The Taliban vs.the Jawa Report .

PJM SydneyJuly 6, 2007 7:00 PM“No joke, the Taliban have posted a message on a well-known Islamic forum addressing me, Rusty Shackleford, indirectly. In it, they gloat that their website is back online.” And then the Taliban challenge the Jawa Report to shut them down again.

Well done, Rusty! We're betting on another takedown soon assuming you haven't already pulled it off. We understand that the federal government is aware of your efforts and has endorsed your one-man crusade.

A private citizen sitting in front of his PC over morning coffee hacks into the enemy's communication system and takes it out from fifteen-thousand miles away. Awesome! We live in an age where an ordinary citizen with a little initiative can knock out an enemy installation with a click of his mouse. Now here's where it gets interesting because we're declaring our own campaign against terrorism. And you, dear reader, are invited to take a shot at the jihadists from the comfort of your own kitchen.

Jihadist videos have found a home at YouTube. Our enemies are using this site to spread propaganda and recruit new terrorists. We're going to shut them down. To play along you need to do the following:

1. Log into YouTube and run a search. Any of the following key words will land you in the right spot: IED, Jihad, Death to Israel, Islamic Republic of Iraq, etc. You won't have any trouble finding them; they are legion.2. Open the jihadist video, then click the icon that says "Flag as inappropriate." Use the drop down menu and click on "hate speech."3. This last step is going to take a great deal of self-control. You're going to see a lot of comments cheering on the terrorists as they blow up American and allied soldiers. Don't answer these comments directly. We want your comment directed at YouTube management. Something like: "This video aids and abets our enemies in time of war and should be deleted" will be sufficient.

Individually your participation might seem insignificant. But thousands of us united will crush this venue as an outlet for enemy propaganda. Our mission is to shut down the Jihadis on YouTube. Strike a blow for freedom. Copy this link and send a copy to everyone you know. Then go to YouTube and start your own personal crusade against terrorism. Be creative, have fun, and don't feel the need to pull any punches.

To Strike your own personal blow against the terrorists, please copy one, or all, of the titles from the Daily Dozen list on the right sidebar. Then go to YOU TUBE and let them know what they can do with it!!!Thanks everyone

911 TRIBUTE

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams